www.energy.gov/em 1 2015 national cleanup workshop managing large capital projects ken picha deputy...
TRANSCRIPT
www.energy.gov/EM 1
2015 National Cleanup Workshop Managing Large Capital Projects
Ken PichaDeputy Assistant Secretary for Tank Waste and Nuclear Material
Office of Environmental Management
September 2015
www.energy.gov/EM 2
Annual Funding by EM Mission Area(Major Tank Waste Projects)
Facility D&D$ 835M/ 14%
Soil & Groundwater$ 527M / 9 %
Site Services*
$ 413M/ 7%
Radioactive Tank Waste$ 2,297M / 39%
Transuranic & Solid Waste
$ 779M / 13%
Special Nuclear Materials and Used Nuclear
Fuel$ 967M / 17%
* Excludes $472M UED&D Fund Contribution for FY 2016
FY 16• WTP (Hanford) $0.690B• SWPF (SRS) $0.194B • LAWPS (Hanford) $0.075B• SDUs (SRS) $0.034B
Total ~$0.993B
www.energy.gov/EM 3
EM’s Largest Capital Projects in Construction
• Salt Waste Processing Facility:– Total Project Cost = $2.32Billion
• Rebaselined August 2014– Construction Complete by 12/31/16– Initiating commissioning activities
• Waste Treatment Plant– Current focus on direct feed of low-activity waste
capability
• Salt Disposal Unit #6– Total Project Cost = $143.2 million– Capable of disposing up to 30 million gallons of
treated low-activity waste– Expect to complete early and under budget
LAB
HLW PT
www.energy.gov/EM 4
EM Tank Waste Projects Moving Forward(Other than WTP and SWPF)
Defense Waste Processing Facility HLW Glass Canisters
• Implement Secretary’s project management initiative requirements– For projects prior to CD-1– Independent review of alternatives– Attain Technology Readiness Level of 6 prior to CD-2– Design reviews (30% and 90%)– Reviews by Project Management Risk Committee
• Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System CD-1 decision• Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility CD-0 decision
• Status Briefings to reconstituted Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board– WTP– SWPF
www.energy.gov/EM 5
Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System
• Facility required to enable Direct Feed of low-activity waste to the WTP Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facility
• Facility expected to support Direct Feed LAW operations • Will have the capability to remove cesium through ion
exchange and solids through filtration from supernate prior to transfer to the LAW Facility
• Provide sufficient feed to enable full capacity operations of both WTP LAW Facility melters – producing 30 metric tons of glass per day
• As a result of implementing DFLAW, WTP facilities will be able to begin processing some waste prior to completion of PT Facility
www.energy.gov/EM 6
Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System (Continued)
• Early in 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tank Waste and Nuclear Material Mission Unit (EM-20) chartered an independent technical, cost and schedule team to consider past and present pretreatment alternatives and potential project vulnerabilities
– The report validated the selections made by ORP – This independent review complies with a key
recommendation from the Improving Project Management, November 2014, report
• The contractor will perform scaled integrated testing of LAWPS critical technology elements to achieve TRL-6 prior to Critical Decision-2, Approve Performance Baseline.
• A DOE organized 30% design review is anticipated November 2015
www.energy.gov/EM 7
Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility
• Blend problematic wastes in order to meet waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for WTP (Pretreatment and potentially High-Level Waste Facility)
• Mix and characterize waste (samples) to ensure WAC for WTP is met
• Condition out-of-specification wastes in order to meet WTP WAC
• Simplify WTP test program to complete technical issue resolution
• Redundancy built in to allow for efficient waste transfers• Could provide for direct feed to the High-Level Waste Facility • CD-0, Mission Need Approved September 2015• Mission Need briefed to Project Management Risk Committee
www.energy.gov/EM 8
Conclusion
• EM is embracing Secretary’s Project Management Initiative – Reviews by Project Management Risk Committee– Design Reviews– Independent Review of Alternative Analysis– Technical Technology Readiness Level of 6
prior to CD-2
• Implementation of Project Management
Initiative increases probability of
successful project execution